Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 80587. February 8, 1989.]

WENPHIL CORPORATION, petitioner , vs. NATIONAL LABOR


RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ROBERTO MALLARE, respondents.

Renato B. Valdecantos & Associates for petitioner.


The Solicitor General for public respondent.
Diego O. Untalan for private respondent.

DECISION

GANCAYCO, J : p

Once again the dismissal of an employee without affording him due process is
brought to the attention of this Court by this petition.
Private respondent was hired by petitioner on January 18, 1984 as a crew
member at its Cubao Branch. He thereafter became the assistant head of the Backroom
department of the same branch. At about 2:30 P.M. on May 20, 1985 private respondent
had an altercation with a co-employee, Job Barrameda, as a result of which he and
Barrameda were suspended on the following morning and in the afternoon of the same
day a memorandum was issued by the Operations Manager advising private respondent
of his dismissal from the service in accordance with their Personnel Manual. The notice
of dismissal was served on private respondent on May 25, 1985.
Thus private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for unfair labor
practice, illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. After submitting their respective
position papers to the Labor Arbiter and as the hearing could not be conducted due to
repeated absence of counsel for respondent, the case was submitted for resolution.
Thereafter a decision was rendered by the Labor Arbiter on December 3, 1986
dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
Private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
wherein in due course a decision was rendered on October 16, 1987 setting aside the
appealed decision and ordering the reinstatement of private respondent to his former
position without loss of seniority and other related benefits and one (1) year backwages
without qualification and deduction.
Hence the herein petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or
restraining order wherein petitioner alleges that the public respondent NLRC committed
a grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision contrary to the evidence on record.
On December 2, 1987, the court issued a restraining order as prayed for in the
petition enjoining the enforcement of the decision dated October 16, 1987 of public
respondent NLRC upon petitioner posting a bond of P20,000.00.
The theory of the petitioner is that on the aforesaid date, May 20, 1985, when
private respondent and Barrameda had a misunderstanding about tending the Salad Bar,
private respondent slapped Barrameda's cap, stepped on his foot and picked up the ice
scooper and brandished it against the latter. Marijo B. Kolimlim who was a management
trainee tried to pacify private respondent but he defied her so Kolimlim reported the
incident to the assistant manager, Delilah C. Hermosura, who immediately asked private
respondent to see her. Private respondent refused to see Hermosura and it took the
security guard to bring him to her. Private respondent then shouted and uttered profane
words instead of making an explanation before her. He stated the matter should be
settled only by him and Barrameda. The following day Kolimlim and Hermosura
submitted a report on the incident and recommended the imposition of the appropriate
penalties on both. It was the store manager who issued a report meting out the penalty
of suspension on the two until further notice in the following morning. Later that day the
Operations Manager issued a memorandum advising Barrameda of one (1) week
suspension and the dismissal of private respondent from the service.
The main thrust of the petition is that under the Personnel Manual of petitioner
which had been read and understood by private respondent, private respondent waived
his right to the investigation. It is provided therein that —
"INVESTIGATION"

If the offense is punishable with a penalty higher than suspension for fifteen (15)
days, upon the request of the erring employee , there shall be convened an
investigation board composed of the following:

1. The Parlor Manager or Supervisor on duty when the incident occurred.

2. The General Manager or the Assistant Manager.

The investigation board shall discuss the merits of the case and shall issue a
ruling, which shall be final and conclusive." (p. 3, Personnel Manual: Emphasis
supplied).LibLex

From the foregoing it appears that an investigation shall only be conducted if the
offense committed by the employee is punishable with the penalty higher than
suspension of fifteen (15) days and the erring employee requests for an investigation of
the incident. Petitioner alleges that private respondent not having asked for an
investigation he is thus deemed to have waived his right to the same. Petitioner avers
that immediately after the incident when private respondent was asked to see
Hermosura, he was defiant and showed that he was not interested to avail of an
investigation.
The contention of petitioner is untenable. The incident happened on May 20, 1985
and right then and there as afore repeated on the following day private respondent was
suspended in the morning and was dismissed from the service in the afternoon. He
received an official notice of his termination four (4) days later.
The defiant attitude of private respondent immediately after the incident amounted
to insubordination. Nevertheless his refusal to explain his side under the circumstances
cannot be considered as a waiver of his right to an investigation.
Although in the Personnel Manual of the petitioner, it states that an erring
employee must request for an investigation it does not thereby mean that petitioner is
thereby relieved of the duty to conduct an investigation before dismissing private
respondent. Indeed said provision of the Personnel Manual of petitioner which may
effectively deprive its employees of the right to due process is clearly against the law
and hence null and void. The security of tenure of a laborer or employee is enshrined in
the Constitution, the Labor Code and other related laws. 1
Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code, it
is provided that "No worker shall be dismissed except for just or authorized cause
provided by law and after due process" Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the same rules require
that before an employer may dismiss an employee the latter must be given a written
notice stating the particular act or omission constituting the grounds thereof; that the
employee may answer the allegations within a reasonable period; that the employer
shall afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance
of his representative, if he so desires; and that it is only then that the employer may
dismiss the employee by notifying him of the decision in writing stating clearly the
reasons therefor. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the employee to
contest its validity in the Regional Branch of the NLRC.
Petitioner insists that private respondent was afforded due process but he refused
to avail of his right to the same; that when the matter was brought to the labor arbiter he
was able to submit his position papers although the hearing cannot proceed due to the
non-appearance of his counsel; and that the private respondent is guilty of serious
misconduct in threatening or coercing a co-employee which is a ground for dismissal
under Article 283 of the Labor Code. LibLex

The failure of petitioner to give private respondent the benefit of a hearing before
he was dismissed constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process
of law and equal protection of the laws. 2 The standards of due process in judicial as
well as administrative proceedings have long been established. In its bare minimum due
process of law simply means giving notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment
is rendered. 3
The claim of petitioner that a formal investigation was not necessary because the
incident which gave rise to the termination of private respondent was witnessed by his
co-employees and supervisors is without merit. The basic requirement of due process is
that which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial. 4
However, it is a matter of fact that when the private respondent filed a complaint
against petitioner he was afforded the right to an investigation by the labor arbiter. He
presented his position paper as did the petitioner. If no hearing was had, it was the fault
of private respondent as his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearings. The
labor arbiter concluded that the dismissal of private respondent was for just cause. He
was found guilty of grave misconduct and insubordination. This is borne by the sworn
statements of witnesses. The Court is bound by this finding of the labor arbiter.
By the same token, the conclusion of the public respondent NLRC on appeal that
private respondent was not afforded due process before he was dismissed is binding on
this Court. Indeed, it is well taken and supported by the records. However, it can not
justify a ruling that private respondent should be reinstated with back wages as the
public respondent NLRC so decreed. Although belatedly, private respondent was
afforded due process before the labor arbiter wherein the just cause of his dismissal had
been established. With such finding, it would be arbitrary and unfair to order his
reinstatement with back wages. prLL

The Court holds that the policy of ordering the reinstatement to the service of an
employee without loss of seniority and the payment of his wages during the period of his
separation until his actual reinstatement but not exceeding three (3) years without
qualification or deduction, when it appears he was not afforded due process, although
his dismissal was found to be for just and authorized cause in an appropriate proceeding
in the Ministry of Labor and Employment, should be re-examined. It will be highly
prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the services of an
employee who has been shown to be guilty of the charges that warranted his dismissal
from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file if the undeserving, if not
undesirable, remains in the service.
Thus in the present case, where the private respondent, who appears to be of
violent temper, caused trouble during office hours and even defied his superiors as they
tried to pacify him, should not be rewarded with re-employment and back wages. It may
encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that
employees are required to observe. Under the circumstances the dismissal of the
private respondent for just cause should be maintained. He has no right to return to his
former employer.
However, the petitioner must nevertheless be held to account for failure to extend
to private respondent his right to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule
is explicit as above discussed. The dismissal of an employee must be for just or
authorized cause and after due process. 5 Petitioner committed an infraction of the
second requirement. Thus, it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal
notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing petitioner from
employment. Considering the circumstances of this case petitioner must indemnify the
private respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The measure of this award depends on the
facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer. prc d

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned decision of the public


respondent NLRC dated October 16, 1987 for the reinstatement with back wages of
private respondent is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and the decision of the labor arbiter
dated December 3, 1986 dismissing the complaint is revived and affirmed, but with the
modification that petitioner is ordered to indemnify private respondent in the amount of
P1,000.00. The restraining order issued by this Court on December 2, 1987 is hereby
made permanent and the bond posted by petitioner is cancelled. This decision is
immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan C .J ., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr ., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ ., concur.

Separate Opinions
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J ., concurring and dissenting :

I, too, share the majority view that private respondent is not entitled to reinstatement and
backwages for having been terminated for cause.

Like Justice Cortes, however, it is my view that private respondent-employee has not been
denied due process. But even if petitioner-employer had failed to comply with the
requirements of investigation and hearing, I believe with Justice Padilla that it is not an
indemnity that petitioner should be made to pay but rather separation pay in such amount
as may be justified under the circumstances of the case, not out of right, but to cushion the
impact of his loss of employment. In fact, this is the practice presently being followed by
the National Labor Relations Commission.

PADILLA, J ., concurring and dissenting :

I concur with the majority opinion that (1) the private respondent (employee) is not entitled
to reinstatement and backwages as it was clearly found by the Labor Arbiter that he was
guilty of grave misconduct and insubordination and (2) the petitioner (employer) failed to
comply with the requirements of administrative due process in not having given the
employee, before his termination, the notice and hearing required by law.

I am of the view, however, that for the employer's omission he should be made to pay the
separated employee a separation pay (instead of indemnity) in the amount of P1,000.00.

"Indemnity" may connote —

"The obligation of a person to make good any loss or damage another has
incurred or may incur by acting at his request or for his benefit.

"That which is given to a person to prevent his suffering a damage. (Shurdut Mill
Supply Co. v. Central Azucarera del Danao, 44037-R, December 19, 1979;" Cited
in Philippine Law Dictionary 3rd Ed., F.B. Moreno, p. 463).

while "separation pay" is pay given to an employee on the occasion of his separation
from employment in order to assuage even a little the effects of loss of employment.

CORTES, J ., concurring and dissenting :

I concur with the majority that a case for illegal dismissal has not been established.
However, my reading of the case reveals no denial of due process, hence there is no basis
for the award of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) as indemnity in favor of private
respondent. On the other hand, if the P1,000.00 is imposed as a sanction in the form of
administrative penalty for failure of petitioner to comply strictly with duly promulgated
regulations implementing the Labor Code, the amount if authorized, should form part of the
public funds of the government.

Footnotes

1. Section 18, Article II, and Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution; Articles 2.80
and 283 of the Labor Code; and the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code.
2. BLTB Bus Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 470.

3. Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23.

4. Lopez vs. Director of Lands, supra.

5. Section 1, Rule XIV, Implementing Regulations of the Labor Code.

Potrebbero piacerti anche